Goverment Plan to Fix Football

[yeo]

The government is to unveil radical proposals that would give football fans first option to buy their clubs when they were put up for sale and require clubs to hand over a stake of up to 25% to supporters' groups.

The ideas, due to be included in the Labour manifesto with a promise of action in the first year of a new government, are designed to give fans a far greater say in how their football clubs are run and overhaul the way the game is governed.

It is believed that No 10, which has been working secretly on the plans for weeks, has resolved to deliver concrete proposals to tackle growing public disquiet at the level of debt carried by some clubs, the ownership model of others and the dysfunctional structure of the Football Association.

The plans include:

• Requiring clubs to hand a stake of up to 25% to fans in recognition of their links with their local community.

• Implementing a change-of-control clause that would allow fans a window to put together a takeover of their club if it was up for sale or went into administration.

• Giving the football authorities a deadline to reform the FA and remove "vested interests" from the board, and streamline decision making.

• Introducing a unified system of governance that co-ordinates issues such as club ownership and youth development.

• Allowing professional leagues and the FA additional oversight of club takeovers.

The plans are likely to put Gordon Brown on a collision course with the Premier League, which has vigorously defended its free-market model in recent years, but he will claim that the proposals are for the good of the game.

Two policy ideas have emerged as frontrunners to improve supporter representation around the boardroom table, both of which would see fans taking a meaningful ownership stake in clubs.

Portsmouth's financial collapse, the outpouring of anger in response to the leveraged buyouts at Manchester United and Liverpool that loaded the clubs with combined debts of more than £1bn, and last week's shock resignation of the FA chief executive, Ian Watmore, in protest at the "vested interests" on the board are all understood to have persuaded the prime minister to act.

Reflecting the view that they will succeed in democratising ownership only if there is stronger leadership from the top, it will also set football a deadline of up to a year to overhaul its governance system.

Under the scheme to give fans a stake, supporters' trusts with elected representatives, audited accounts and Financial Services Authority recognition would be responsible for maintaining the link between clubs and their community and ensuring fans are not priced out of the game.

The government could, however, face legal challenges from existing owners over the dilution of their shares. It has echoes of the model proposed by the so-called Red Knights attempting to buy Manchester United. Wealthy fans will contribute 74.9% of the overall purchase price, but supporters will hold a "golden share" of just over 25%, giving them a blocking stake on any change of ownership and an influential boardroom voice.

Legal advice is being sought on the idea of a change of ownership at a club triggering a mandatory window for fans to take the opportunity to shape the ownership structure and buy the club at a price set by an external, independent auditor.

Under the proposals, fans would be free to set up their co-operative style model, shareholding trust or other structure that enabled them to have a say in the club.

While the government will reiterate that it has no desire to regulate football directly, the prime minister believes the democratisation of football club ownership taps into wider themes about the "mutualisation" of public services and the need for regulatory reform

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/28/government-plan-football-clubs-fans

I like the idea but its blatent electioneering and is never going to happen especially as they probably wont be the goverment in a months time.

[Batch]

Seems a bit pie in the sky to me.   Can't see the courts allowing PLC and LTDcompany rules to be messed around with like this.

Besides which, it should be football authorities fixing the issues not Governments

[pauld]

Seems a bit pie in the sky to me.   Can't see the courts allowing PLC and LTDcompany rules to be messed around with like this.

It does sound like a load of bollocks tbh, especially as the Sports Minister was on the 5Live "Sports Ministers Debate" as recently as last Thursday and basically took the same line as Batch does below:

Besides which, it should be football authorities fixing the issues not Governments

I'd tend to agree, but the problem is the "football authorities" have shown themselves woefully incapable of doing so. As an example, while football's careening off a cliff, Mawhinney was happily taking plaudits on his resignation for his "successful rebranding" of Divisions 1, 2 and 3 into the Championship, League One and Two. Yeah, cos that's just what football needed

[Nemo]

My lord, wouldn't it be easier just to promise free beer on the buying votes front?

[pauld]

My lord, wouldn't it be easier just to promise free beer on the buying votes front?

Well, they've already made poverty illegal (seriously). There's pretty much only "guaranteed longer penises and satisfaction for your woman" as a manifesto pledge to go.

[Talk Talk]

Well, they've already made poverty illegal (seriously). There's pretty much only "guaranteed longer penises and satisfaction for your woman" as a manifesto pledge to go.

Complete cock up.

[Barry Scott]

I'm not reading the article; i'm lazy and apathetic. But i wouldn't trust the government to fix anything involving money, people or our country.

[ghanimah]

This would be from the same Government that 'hid' this in the budget:

The Treasury faces a wave of demands from international sports stars that they be exempt from tax when they compete in the UK, to match the tax waiver announced in the Budget for foreign-based footballers playing in next year’s Champions League final at Wembley.

A Budget resolution made provision “to exempt certain persons from income tax in respect of certain income arising in connection with the 2011 Champions League final”. The move was requested by Gerry Sutcliffe, sports minister, because the taxation issue was proving a stumbling block in the Football Association’s attempt to persuade European counterpart Uefa to bring its high-profile final to Wembley.

Revenue & Customs taxes the prize money and image and sponsorship rights of overseas sports stars who come to the UK to take part in international events.

Two years ago Uefa rejected Wembley as host of the 2010 final and awarded it to Madrid, singling out UK tax laws as the reason for its decision.

The Budget resolution set the seal on a deal between Uefa and the government that in January last year resulted in the governing body awarding the 2011 final to Wembley.

Spurred on by London’s winning of the 2012 Olympics, the government has been encouraging cities and sports bodies to bid for the hosting rights of prestigious international sports events.

But sports rights holders are demanding the government relaxes its tax rules as a condition of bidding for their events. The Treasury has agreed to tax exemptions for officials of Fifa, football’s world governing body, in the event that England wins the right to host the 2018 World Cup.

According to some tax experts, the Champions League exemption is bound to rekindle demands from other international sports stars competing in the UK to be treated similarly.

Ronnie Ludwig of accountants Saffery Champness said: “One can appreciate the logic of such a move to protect Britain’s ability to host this event. However, it smacks of discrimination and will prompt an outcry.”

He added: “Why should footballers appearing in the Champions League final be exempted from UK taxes whilst tennis players at Wimbledon or golfers at the British Open are not?”

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport declined to comment.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c6896e8-384c-11df-8420-00144feabdc0.html

[jonny72]

I like the idea but its blatent electioneering and is never going to happen especially as they probably wont be the goverment in a months time.

Most likely a controlled leak by the Labour spin doctors to gauge public reaction to it, so they can decide whether to include it in the upcoming election campaign or write it off as something they considered but decided against.

Whilst our football authorities are pretty damn useless I'd prefer them trying to sort things out (or not) over politicians getting involved as things would only get worse if that happened. As an example of how bad things could get there is at least one proposal in that article (giving the FA a deadline to make reforms) that would be sending us down the path of being suspended by FIFA, with the mere discussion of proposals such as that likely to inflict major damage on our chances of getting the World Cup.

[Samdy Gray]

Uh oh... a thread about politics AND football! The TEF's going to implode!

[pauld]

As an example of how bad things could get there is at least one proposal in that article (giving the FA a deadline to make reforms) that would be sending us down the path of being suspended by FIFA, with the mere discussion of proposals such as that likely to inflict major damage on our chances of getting the World Cup.

God, not this old canard again. FIFA have taken this action three times IIRC - Greece, Nigeria(?) and Iran. In each case it was because the governments either replaced their FAs entirely or insisted they sack their top staff and replace them with government appointees. It's not true that any government interaction with a local FA results in that FA being suspended by FIFA - that would be ridiculous, as if FIFA are attempting to make local FAs like the medieval Catholic Church, above the state. It's when governments blatantly attempt to replace "independent" FAs with obviously gerrymandered political bodies. Even then, many FAs are riddled with government appointees, it's the wholesale and blatant way Greece et al went about it that caused the problem with FIFA.

[jayohaitchenn]

I don't see the problem with that to be honest. At least most MP's are elected.

[jonny72]

God, not this old canard again. FIFA have taken this action three times IIRC - Greece, Nigeria(?) and Iran. In each case it was because the governments either replaced their FAs entirely or insisted they sack their top staff and replace them with government appointees.

Peru, Iraq, Ethiopia - I'm sure there has been others as well. Government interference in the appointment of officials is normally enough to do the trick and I'm sure they'd make an example of us as they normally do. As I said though, at minimum it could very easily derail the 2018 World Cup bid.

[pauld]

Peru, Iraq, Ethiopia - I'm sure there has been others as well. Government interference in the appointment of officials is normally enough to do the trick

Yes it is. But that's not what they're proposing, so I'm not sure what your point is.

As I said though, at minimum it could very easily derail the 2018 World Cup bid.

The FA don't need any help derailing the 2018 bid, they're managing very nicely by themselves

[jonny72]

Yes it is. But that's not what they're proposing, so I'm not sure what your point is.

This seems to suggest interference in the make up of the FA board;

Giving the football authorities a deadline to reform the FA and remove "vested interests" from the board, and streamline decision making.